Americans should pay close attention to a new artificial intelligence proposal from Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.), a democratic socialist, and Rep. Greg Casar (D-Texas).
Sanders and Casar recently announced plans to introduce the Ban Artificial Superintelligence Act. Their proposal aims to prevent the creation of artificial intelligence systems that become more intelligent than human beings or develop capabilities that could threaten humanity.
According to a summary released by Sanders’ office, the bill would permanently prohibit the development and deployment of artificial superintelligence—including systems that surpass human intelligence, threaten governments, or evade human control. It would also pause advanced AI development until a new federal regulator establishes safety rules and reviews models.
The proposal envisions creating a Cabinet-level agency to regulate advanced artificial intelligence. This agency would monitor frontier AI systems throughout their development, oversee the removal of dangerous capabilities, and supervise the destruction of prohibited artificial-superintelligence systems.
Under the bill, individuals who violate or circumvent its restrictions could face up to 20 years in prison. Companies might be subject to what Sanders’ office calls the “corporate death penalty.” The United States would also pursue international agreements, export controls, and allied coordination to prevent artificial superintelligence from being developed elsewhere.
The dangers identified by the proposal warrant serious attention. However, the government’s record in managing complex institutions raises concerns. The Postal Service reported a $9 billion net loss in fiscal year 2025, Amtrak recorded a $598.4 million adjusted operating loss despite record ridership and revenue for fiscal year 2025, and the federal government had accumulated a $2 trillion deficit through the first 11 months of fiscal 2026.
These examples highlight institutional challenges. While running railroads or postal networks differs from regulating artificial intelligence—technology that experts warn is becoming increasingly difficult to control—the government’s track record raises legitimate questions about its capacity to oversee such a critical technology.
Another risk is politicization. A Cabinet-level agency under the proposal would determine which AI systems proceed, establish safety rules, review models, monitor capabilities, require developers to remove dangerous features, and supervise system destruction. Such powers could be used to limit lawful activity, favor politically connected companies, or advance ideological agendas.
The federalism debate also matters: Congress has constitutional authority over interstate commerce, while states retain broad regulatory powers. A state-centered model could disperse power—allowing states to adopt different approaches, experiment with safety standards, and correct mistakes without national consequences. However, a patchwork of 50 state systems might create compliance challenges for technology that crosses state lines.
The proposal has been announced but not yet formally introduced, so its precise statutory language remains unknown. Based on Sanders’ office summary, it would establish a Cabinet agency capable of halting AI development, ordering system destruction, imposing potentially existential penalties on companies, and sentencing individuals to decades in prison.
Before Congress considers such an extraordinary framework, Americans must decide how much authority any single government agency should hold over artificial intelligence development—and what safeguards would prevent that authority from being abused.
